For the millions of you who continue to get your news only through Bareknuckle Vengeance (and you’ve really got to stop doing that since, over the past week, you’ve only learned that Minnesota winters suck and corn syrup is bad for you), the Transportation Security Administration is facing significant push-back from lawmakers, pilots, and passengers for their use of “full-body scanners” during the security screening process. The scanners, which have been in use in some European airports since 2007, use ionizing radiation to take a semi-nude image of passenger’s bodies without necessitating the removal of clothing, thus finally fulfilling the fantasy of every 1950s pervert-nerd who dreamed of “X-ray specs.”
 |
| The future is now, people. |
While Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has assured Americans that the scanning machines are “safe, efficient” and absolutely necessary for the safety of air travel, many Americans have expressed both privacy and health concerns over the invasive scans, which render a disturbingly detailed image the bulbous American body in all of its jiggling splendor:
 |
| Because the metal detector wasn't going to catch that gun. |
Thus far, the scientific consensus appears to be that the cancer risk posed by exposure to the scanners’ radiation is relatively minimal, particularly considering that the act of flying itself exposes passengers to substantially higher amounts of radiation. But there are enough conflicting opinions and open questions (there are no longitudinal studies on the scanners’ safety) to nonetheless be concerned.
First, while the amount of energy used would be safe if distributed throughout the entire body, some scientists have expressed concern that its concentration on the skin may substantially increase passengers’ health risk. Others note that exposure to any X-rays is neither desirable nor without risk, and scanners could pose particular risks to the elderly, pregnant, ill, or anyone with a scrotum: “Men’s sexual organs are exposed to the X-rays. The skin is very thin there.” Finally, any statement reassuring the general public about the safety of the machines is implicitly premised on those machines working properly at all times—what happens to the unfortunate passenger(s) subjected to an improperly working machine?
First, while the amount of energy used would be safe if distributed throughout the entire body, some scientists have expressed concern that its concentration on the skin may substantially increase passengers’ health risk. Others note that exposure to any X-rays is neither desirable nor without risk, and scanners could pose particular risks to the elderly, pregnant, ill, or anyone with a scrotum: “Men’s sexual organs are exposed to the X-rays. The skin is very thin there.” Finally, any statement reassuring the general public about the safety of the machines is implicitly premised on those machines working properly at all times—what happens to the unfortunate passenger(s) subjected to an improperly working machine?
More immediately disconcerting, however, are the privacy issues inherent to the process. There really is, as Jeffrey Goldberg suggests, something just profoundly unsettling about the government lining people up to take pictures of their genitalia and nude bodies in airports--not because I think there is some bizarre sinister conspiracy involved--but it just seems incredibly dehumanizing. Even the required pose forces you to act like a cornered pedophile on Stabler: The Pathos:
Despite all of this, recent polls suggest that the overwhelming majority of Americans (81%) support their use in the airport screening process. Statistician Nate Silver points out that most Americans have, thus far, had no experience with full-body scans, so such polls largely reflect what Americans think of the scans “in theory.” But, really, given all of the ridiculous security theater we’ve embraced since 9/11—shoes, liquids, lighters, threat levels—it shouldn’t be surprising that most Americans would support such a policy.
 |
If, however, you are somehow uncomfortable with being herded into lines, zapped with radiation, and digitally nuded-up to have your genitals analyzed, you have the option of undergoing what the TSA refers to as an "enhanced" pat down. And really, if there is one lesson to be learned from the past decade, it's that whenever the American government euphemistically modifies a noun with the word "enhanced," it always turns out well:
 |
| Enhanced Pool Party |
Based off the experiences of many who have undergone the "enhanced pat-downs," it would appear that just as "enhanced interrogation" is really just torture, an "enhanced pat-down" is really just groping. As one respected blogger wrote:
"She felt along my waistline, moved behind me, then proceeded to feel both of my buttocks. She reached from behind in the middle of my buttocks towards my vagina area. She did not tell me that she was going to touch my buttocks, or reach forward to my vagina area. She then moved in front of my and touched the top and underneath portions of both of my breasts. She did not tell me that she was going to touch my breasts. She then felt around my waist. She then moved to the bottoms of my legs. She then felt my inner thighs and my vagina area, touching both of my labia. She did not tell me that she was going to touch my vagina area or my labia… I stood there holding my baby in shock. I did not move for almost a minute. I stood there, an American citizen, a mom traveling with a baby with special needs formula, sexually assaulted by a government official. I began shaking and felt completely violated, abused and assaulted by the TSA agent. I shook for several hours, and woke up the next day shaking."
There is no way this could have a traumatic psychological and emotional impact on, for instance, victims of sexual violence, right? And I'm quite sure the noted professionals at the TSA will uniformly handle this with sensitivity and class--just as I'm sure this 3-year-old girl was simply forgetting "the lessons of 9/11" when begged a TSA agent to stop touching her:
Despite all of this, recent polls suggest that the overwhelming majority of Americans (81%) support their use in the airport screening process. Statistician Nate Silver points out that most Americans have, thus far, had no experience with full-body scans, so such polls largely reflect what Americans think of the scans “in theory.” But, really, given all of the ridiculous security theater we’ve embraced since 9/11—shoes, liquids, lighters, threat levels—it shouldn’t be surprising that most Americans would support such a policy.
None of this actually improves security, of course. Bruce Schneier, one of the more influential security experts in the world, argues that “there have been exactly two things since 9/11 that have made air travel safer… Reinforcing the cockpit door and telling people to fight back in the event of an attack.” Beyond that, these measures only have the effect of making people feel safer.
And, as others have noted, if any potential terrorist thought that full-body scans or groping were going to foil their nefarious plans any more than a metal detector would, they could simply wedge explosives and/or weaponry into their body cavities (which is a disturbing party trick) or surgically implant them. So, unless you’re willing to force body cavity searches onto prospective passengers or create a machine that safely examines passengers' rectums, this all seems utterly pointless.
And, as others have noted, if any potential terrorist thought that full-body scans or groping were going to foil their nefarious plans any more than a metal detector would, they could simply wedge explosives and/or weaponry into their body cavities (which is a disturbing party trick) or surgically implant them. So, unless you’re willing to force body cavity searches onto prospective passengers or create a machine that safely examines passengers' rectums, this all seems utterly pointless.
But beyond the question of effectiveness, I think we need to really think about whether it would even be worth it. Are we really at a point that repeated sexual assault (on children, no less) and X-ray specs seem like a reasonable price to pay to make an already minute risk slightly smaller--or just make us feel safer? Are airplanes really the only effective--or even most likely--way for someone to kill a few hundred people? Why are we so obsessed with the safety of airplanes? Wouldn’t the money be much better spent on rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure or, you know, health care? At some point, we may need to realize that terrorism is an enormously small but ever-present risk that will, unfortunately, happen. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take effective pre-emptive measures, but it may not be worth sacrificing our ideals and our civil liberties to combat it.
Posts
No Response to "T&A and the TSA: Security Theater of the Absurd"
Post a Comment